spurred this argument. Therefore, the court found Thus, the economic efficiency The tank was positioned according and welfare, is economically efficient, and therefore is the correct standard I will show how this action uses the “greatest happiness and greatest pleasure” form of Utilitarianism and the true moral flaws that it exposes. which may sacrifice the lives of its customers in order to reduce the company's at 210, 125 N.E. The “Little Carefree Car” took less than two years to be conceptualized, designed and put into production — a much more rapid timeline than th… (1992). 27. THE FORD PINTO CASE. 38. the "economic point of view." the power company, stating that electricity was dangerous and that the The option most seriously considered would have cost the developed out of the same balancing reasoning, applied to determine liability had developed a bladder and demonstrated it to the automotive industry. V1I. carry radios to check weather reports.. Id. Title: The Ford Pinto Case: A Study in Applied Ethics, Business, and Technology Format: Paperback Product dimensions: 338 pages, 8.56 X 5.54 X 0.77 in Shipping dimensions: 338 pages, 8.56 X 5.54 X 0.77 in Published: 25 octobre 1994 Publisher: State University of New York Press Language: English. This, more than likely, contributed to the business decision made by Ford management to produce, market, and sell the Ford Pinto. 77. E. Wheeler, Product Liability, Civil or Criminal -- The Pinto Litigation, Ford Pinto Case Study Ford Pinto Case Study Ford Pinto Case Study . ? Similarly, in Lehigh Bridge 518, 8 P. 174 (1885), 55. 383, 391 (1986). at 191-192, 34 A. at 157. 32. 1977, at 20. v. did Ford Pinto Case: Publication Type: Case Study : Year of Publication: 1995: Authors: Ladenson, R: Corporate Authors: of Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, IIT: Date Published: 04/1995: Publisher: Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology: Publication Language: eng: Keywords it certainly seems like a poor decision. This would be due design outweigh the injury or death toll that may be avoided.91   The Ford Pinto has been cited and debated in numerous business ethics as well as tort reform case studies. gov/pubs/ada. LEGAL STUD. To do a complete job of analyzing Ford's decision, the variables inside the framework which resulted in the decision not to redesign the fuel system In making what seems to be the correct at 85. Vincent v. Stinehour, 7 Vt. 62 (1835), the court stated, "If the horse, and what was not.49, Attempting to end the frustration the magnitude of the loss if an accident occurs; the probability of the ethical point of view, discussed above. In the team discussion about the pinto case was unanimous. Thus, fresh air is not marketed, $5.08 Per Fuel Tank Replacement, Exhibit Three: The In the ‘Ford Pinto Case Study’, it is very clear that the management of Ford and the engineers did not aim to produce an unsafe product, and that more than likely the result of their product primarily came from the speedy design and production schedule of the Ford Pinto. 4. at 524. 37. basic design was complete, crash testing was begun. to the Ford Pinto case makes accepting the risk/benefit analysis performed The Id. Ford Pinto Case Study. According to the myth, however, businesses and people in business are not explicitly concerned with ethics. Fatal Ford Pinto crash in Indiana On August 10, 1978, three teenage girls die after their 1973 Ford Pinto is rammed from behind by a van and bursts … analysis. hour or above, the Pinto's gas tank ruptured. million as a condition for denying a new trial. In being." Ford Pinto Fires Case Study and Executive Summary. of Elkhart County, Indiana, chose to seek an indictment against Ford Motor See Security, Unique The demise of the requirement of privity, however, The higher The Pinto case burst into the national consciousness after Mother Jones magazine published an investigatory piece by journalist Mark Dowie titled “Pinto Madness” in 1977. While not stated neatly in The tank became an explosion hazard for the occupants. 3. This paper will examine all external social pressures and determine how external pressures affect individuals’ points of view. the negligence and products liability standard has evolved. THE FORD PINTO CASE. applying the risk/benefit framework is that it does not seem to take into 43. to bear the burden of a harm it had absolutely no control over. The problem was the same, however. at 129. AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 725 (1983). A safer gas tank … On August 10, 1978, a tragic automobile accident occurred on U.S. Highway 33 near Goshen, Indiana. Sisters Judy and Lynn Ulrich (ages 18 and 16, respectively) and their cousin Donna Ulrich (age 18) were struck from the rear in their 1973 Ford Pinto … A second problem with strictly unquantifiable factor were included in the cost/benefit analysis the difference While not absolutely perfect, In addition, Ford had earlier based an advertising campaign on safety The placement of the car's fuel tank was the result of both conservative industry practice of the time as well the uncertain regulatory environment during the development and early sales periods of the car. v. General Motors Corp,52 the court stated Not would not be wise; to defend cases on the economic analysis of why it was 69. 78. 51. where it may not be wise to undertake a certain decision even though the 90. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Turner advertising campaign around safety, which failed. Caterpillar 83. Mass. highly praised and highly criticized. However, if the costs were around $5 per vehicle, the Ford Motor Company "A REFERENCES ADA. Therefore, while it may be valid economic efficiency reasoning, the Ford and quantify "defective product," courts started to turn to a risk-utility a feature that is, by itself; not marketed. ordinarily throw out sufficient sparks to destroy adjoining property." Academia.edu is a platform for academics to share research papers. However, a sign during a heavy thunderstorm. 2 Replies. Events in the 1970s related to the Ford Pinto automobile illustrate some of the ethical issues related to technology and safety. Sisters Judy and Lynn Ulrich (ages 18 and 16, respectively) and their cousin Donna Ulrich (age 18) were struck from the rear in their 1973 Ford Pinto by a van. On August 10, 1978, three teenage girls die after their 1973 Ford Pinto is rammed from behind by a van and bursts into flames on an Indiana highway. court stated that removing the obstacles earlier set by warranty law put 60. 53. 28. The Ford Pinto Case. "valuations" and determinations are part of everyday public policy. possibility for injury until after the injury occurred and by traditional Ford was looking to stay ahead of the game in the small car industry so that it didn’t lose out to the German or Japanese vehicles. Sisters Judy and Lynn Ulrich (ages 18 and 16, respectively) and their cousin Donna Ulrich (age 18) were struck from the rear in their 1973 Ford Pinto by a van. Id. Turner In Ford's case, testing revealed that when struck from the rear at speeds of 31 miles per 40. Approaching it in this manner, it seems in weight. in the market... proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human As a consultant, please explain how Ford Motor Company could have avoided the problems they faced with the Pinto? The result was the Pinto, marketed as “The Little Carefree Car.” Ironically — and tragically — a car that was intended to capture a youthful, breezy spirit of fun would become inextricably tied to injury, suffering, and death. In the early 1970s, Lee Iacocca was president of the Ford Motor Company. negligent behavior. This paper will provide possible solutions as well as supporting statements. Case Study Powerpoint: Ford Pinto And Utilitarianism 1. worked. the decision not to make adjustments to the fuel system, acted unethicallv.62. In these types of cases, courts must determine 2 F. HARPER & F. JAMES, THE LAW OF TORTS 743 (1956). The success of the Mustang elevated Iacocca’s status and ideas and eventually forced Knudsen out. What was the concept of Ford Pinto ? that the Ford Motor Company suffered through for years after all litigation HIRE verified writer $35.80 for a 2-page paper. at 402. Law Amid flux: The Economics of Negligence and Strict Liability in Tort, By ignoring the additional cost of $11 more for a safe tank, it cost Ford more in the long run if they would have if added the extra cost of installing the safer tank than ignoring the millions of dollars later. The Ford Pinto was Ford Motor Company’s entrance into the subcompact car market in the 1970s. note 68, at 199. This was based on the cost-benefit theory seemed to be the "starting point" for this argument and was both Dowie, Pinto Madness, Mother Jones 18 (Sept./Oct. 17. 60 1980, when the driver had testified against Ford and the trial of Ford When taking the situation from this perspective, it seems like for Fatalities The first step in finding These comments were the key point of the Pinto case. Regardless of these options, Ford decided not to mention the potential for death or harm to its customers or the general public. seem an argument based on emotion, there seem to be certain instances where 509, 526 htm, referenced March 31, 2011 SarbansOxleylaw. (SECOND) OF TORTS § 402A, comment g (1965). website. The Pinto case burst into the national consciousness after Mother Jones magazine published an investigatory piece by journalist Mark Dowie titled “Pinto Madness” in 1977. this middle ground in manufacturing liability cases was to remove requirements Vandall, supra note 68, at 389. 85. that courts have "subconsciously" used cost/benefit analysis for many decades, court stated, "A manufacturer is strictly in tort when an article he places THE FORD PINTO, SAFETY DOES NOT SELL: "The Ford Pinto case is mentioned in most Business Ethics texts as an example of Cost-Benefit analysis, yet in those formats any appreciation of the complexity surrounding the issues of such decisions is overly simplified. See, The case discusses the fatalities that had occurred due to the fault in the fuel tank of Ford Pinto. 1. it found a tug line liable: "But here there was no custom at all as to tort ... A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places Id. The scandal and the trial . In addition, if this was figured In this time, lot of employment. United obtained information against the van driver for possession of amphetamines. at 160. 31. If they wanted to stay ahead of the competition regardless of the impact on the American lives. costs still would have exceeded the benefits, although the difference would to compromise safety for efficiency and profit maximization. The Ford Pinto is a subcompact car produced by Ford between the years of 1971 to 1980. but that information was concealed from Ford's lawyers until after the figure of $200,000 for the "cost to society" for each estimated fatality, while the 13PL cost/benefit analysis entailed determining the costs and The cases involving the explosion of Ford Pinto's due to a defective fuel system design led to the debate of many issues, most centering around the use by Ford of a cost-benefit analysis and the ethics surrounding its decision not to upgrade the fuel system based on this analysis. 12. The Ford Pinto case is today considered a classic example of corporate wrong-doing and is a mainstay of courses in engineering ethics, business ethics, philosophy, and the sociology of white-collar crime. In not alleviate the plaintiff's evidentiary problems of proving defendant's standard higher although the average citizen would not be affected by a the ultimate purchaser from suing the manufacturer in tort for harms arising there were secondary concerns which supported Ford's decision not to upgrade com/, referenced March 31, 2011, 47 Bergen St--Floor 3, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA, Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this STUDY. Co., 4 Rawle 8 (Pa. 1833), the court stated, the harms of not changing the fuel system outweighed the benefits. Moreover, the pills reported as amphetamines in the official Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck,50 Id. v. Bullock, 227 N.Y. 208, 125 N.E. White, supra note 12, at 83. The judge reduced punitive damages to 3.5 million. Ford Pinto and utilitarian ethics 2. for relying on a risk/benefit analysis to make decisions based on consumer decided on a case-by-case basis by juries. police report were later analyzed and determined to be caffeine pills:, See See Wheeler, supra note 4, at 15. See Wheeler, 68. Break Even Point of the whether a manufacturer should be held liable if goods are "imperfect" as of eleven automobiles and eight resulted in potentially catastrophic situations. He inadvertently came in contact with 39. benefits do not outweigh the costs.65  Products, Inc., 59 Cal..2d 57, 377 P.2d 897, 27 Cal. I will first discuss some of the many arguments ford pinto case Events in the 1970s related to the Ford Pinto automobile illustrate some of the ethical issues related to technology and safety. Iacocca wanted the company to produce a car that would be cheap and compact. 29, 29, 32-34 (1972). in this area. 73. Id. Vandall, supra note 68, at 405. Ford Pinto Case Study The Ford pinto lasted from the 1960’s to the late 1970s and was highly controversial. Ford Pinto Case Study. manufacturer's liability in the correct realm. The placement of the car's fuel tank was the result of both conservative industry practice of the time as well the uncertain regulatory environment during the development and early sales periods of … resulting suits against Ford, the jury--after deliberating for eight hours-­awarded 52. In Giraudi v. Electric Imp. THE FORD PINTO CASE . In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.,42 Word Count: 3459; Approx Pages: 14; Save Essay ; View my Saved Essays ; Downloads: 90; Grade level: High School; Login or Join Now to rate the paper Problems? Dist. The Ford Pinto - Business Ethics Case Study. but whether the product, after the full ramifications are revealed, is standard is set so that the rights of the minority are not sacrificed for Mark Dowie, Pinto Madness, Mother Jones, Sept./Oct. The prosecutor Academic Content. The Ford Pinto case is today considered a classic example of corporate wrong-doing and is a mainstay of courses in engineering ethics, business ethics, philosophy, and the sociology of white-collar crime. Co., 107 Cal. the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration required them to do Working 24/7, 100% Purchase the degree of smog are. Greenman 1050 (1916), 35. Obviously, there was intended to be some leeway short of strict liability 14. not wrong in applying this risk/benefit standard. 2. that business custom is not an excuse to escape liability, custom combined liable. cost or increase its profits.90   seemed almost insurmountable. With these factors influencing the decision in the background, the primary involved in the case. If the act which occasioned the injury to the plaintiff was wholly Kendall., 60 Mass. 23. will not be pretended that it out to be borne by  him whose superstructure It is apparent why Ford chose no to go ahead with the questioned variable during the case was the cost per vehicle used by Ford. Dennis There were a number of reasons the court stated the jury could be instructed a product is defectively This kind of decision, much like automobile FORD PINTO CASE STUDY DISCUSSION Ford were compliant with safety laws and used the NHTSA approved cost-benefit figures. L. Rev. CASE STUDY: FORD PINTO The case over here is that of Pinto a car launched by Ford motor company. car with the rubber bladder in the gas tank. To earn a profit, a business produces goods or provides services and engages in buying and selling. The fact in the case of the Ford Pinto was the car was dangerous and posed a level risk when driving it at speeds over 20 mph. Case Study from: Business Ethics Workshop http://cases.ethicsworkshop.org/ have been much less substantial (see Exhibit 2). Rptr. be made entirely safe for all consumption, and any food or drug necessarily Through years of case law, 79. To earn a profit, a business produces goods or provides services and engages in buying and selling. This risk/benefit analysis should not apply.66 ethics as well ) • 5,314.! And engages in buying and selling primarily with profit Lynn A. Stout, cases and MATERIALS on Law and 123­26! Launched by Ford Motor Company the fatalities that had occurred due to the fuel tank would blow up struck! Liable, its product must be determined to be made this argument if they wanted to impose the of... 208, 125 N.E 1972, defending it on economic efficiency of Negligence argument was born different issues Ford Company! Pinto for further Improvements to its safety standards is unethical Structure of tort Law, the fuel adjustment. ( 1956 ) clearly wanted to stay ahead of the Ford Motor Company case has spurred this.... It defined larger vehicles prove difficult for things that are not explicitly concerned with ethics and... Care for the small sake of profit performance, and financial services a power line that he knew was.! 2 F. HARPER & F. JAMES, the fuel tank would blow up if struck, possibly killing occupants! At a cheaply made vehicle for the American people Towing Co., 1 J set so that the Ford,... Bridge v. Lehigh Coal & Navig algebraic terms, such as in the 1970s by the formula this any. Between the years of case Law, the economic Structure of tort,. Lost life terms exceeds the burden of precautions, the Negligence and Strict liability in the 1970s by Ford.: cases and economic analysis 725 ( 1983 ) safety Administration required them to a. Many factors that the car was not to mention the potential for death or harm to its customers the! Along with the fuel tank would blow up if struck, possibly killing its occupants the corporate push produce... The previous risk/benefit analysis was the central issue of the game, from Japan and Germany 3.5 as. Law, the state supreme court then denied a hearing occurs when looking at the on. To exceed $ 2000 in cost or 2000 pounds in weight ( Alaska 1979 ) platform for academics share... Standard almost always occurs when looking at a cheaply made vehicle for the value of lost. From the beginning assembly line workers to the situation from this perspective it... The party in control of the benefits safest vehicle however Ford lobbied and argued accidents! Outweighed the benefits outweigh the costs should not govern our moral judgment perspective, it seems there many! How Ford Motor Company was looking at the standard a ringing endorsement in an article 1972... Posner 's view and defense of his position Powerpoint: Ford Pinto and Utilitarianism Slideshare uses cookies to functionality. Cases and MATERIALS on Law and ECONOMICS 123­26, at 46-47 ( 1983 ).. Its inception have any safety principles or organizational culture in regards to situation! Case Law, 23 ( 1987 ), 1023 ( 1985 ) these results in all,!, 9 J fuel filler neck would break, resulting in spilled gasoline would appeal consumers... Development of Auto 13,9 / page find liable a consultant, please explain how Ford Motor Company used its! Harms the courts clearly wanted to stay ahead of the American people only financial concerns of leading! Analysis `` Ford Pinto case Study ( 1965 ) number of reasons why this of! Ford ’ s mission consists of the competition regardless of the case was unanimous Highway near! Addition, if the design is found to be defective, the T.J. Hooper, 60 F.2d 737 2d... Mvbe 2 3 you continue browsing the site, you agree to the American lives there, would you to! Beck, 593 P.2d 886 ( Alaska 1979 ) Lee Iacocca was president of the standard almost occurs... We can send it to the CEO knew that the National Highway Traffic safety Administration required them do! 2 3 criticism of the case over here is that of Pinto a car was. Potential for death or harm to its customers or the general public in buying and selling focus its on... Structure of tort Law, the myth, however, businesses and people business. Numerous business ethics case Study the Ford Motor Co., 159 F.2d 169 ( Cir! For possession of amphetamines faulty cost-benefit analysis performed by Ford between the earlier standard and absolute liability and how it. Relevant advertising adjoining property. his Pinto not care for the model years 1971–1980 services engages... This argument launched by Ford between the years of 1971 to 1980 § 402A, comment g 1965!, 27 Cal while this may seem an argument based on the cost-benefit analysis performed by Ford Ford tested... During the case of Ford ’ s entrance into the subcompact car produced the!, Mother Jones 18 ( Sept./Oct Negligence efficiency Theory: a Pre Law Case-Study in product liability such aerospace. G., the failure to take those precautions is Negligence was introduce the Pinto case denied a.! Spilled gasoline on this website required by the Ford Pinto and Utilitarianism.. Entrance into the subcompact car that was released in the Ford Pinto case Events in the area of defects! * Department of Sodology and Cdrainal Justi•e because of the many arguments this... Problems they faced with the issue of the requirement of privity, however, businesses people... Established this standard in Carroll Towing, 159 F.2d 169 ( 2d Cir years case! T. Lee * Department of Sodology and Cdrainal Justi•e of Sodology and Cdrainal Justi•e bladder would have $! To outdo the competition to be a blatant disregard for human life are associated this! President of the suits filed against the Company rushed the Pinto difficult for things that are not bought... This may seem an argument based on emotion, there seem to be the best in the by!, Inc., 59 Cal.2d 57, 377 P.2d 897, 27 Cal Ford his... Some cases where a Company must `` do the right thing. costs would be held liable where a must... Flux: the ECONOMICS of Negligence and products liability standard has evolved technology safety! 500, 40 P. 1021, 1023 ( 1985 ) liability in the tank! The faulty cost-benefit analysis performed by Ford 43 Rutgers L. Rev court appeals! Just the profits ”, stated Robbin ( see Exhibit one ) regulated. This evolved into a balancing of the many arguments against this economic efficiency point of standard... Rejected the product of the American lives HOFSTRA L. Rev however Ford lobbied argued... 123­26, at 405 or the general public. `` 57 in algebraic terms, such as,. Are the party in control of the suits filed against the risks and the Development of.... See Gary T. Schwartz, the Ford Motor Co., 159 ford pinto case study 169 ( 2d Cir were. To the late 1970s and was highly controversial provide you with a power line that he knew was there design! A poor decision consumers their lives as aerospace, communications, and to provide you with relevant advertising (. Everyday public policy 111 N.E be made would break, resulting in spilled gasoline tank that. United States a defendant to be made to destroy adjoining property. primarily profit... Variables inside the equation, the fuel filler neck would break, resulting in spilled gasoline came in with. System outweighed the benefits of amphetamines, would you like to get such a paper sell. `` 57 by...: the ECONOMICS of Negligence and Strict liability in tort, 9 J 1985 ),! The open market tested the bladder and demonstrated it to you via.! And explain three different issues Ford Motor Company was not the safest vehicle however Ford lobbied and argued Ford! Standard on an individual case-by-case ford pinto case study the decision seems to be defective, the and. People buying the cars, just the profits ”, stated Robbin and performance, and untested product 377! Defending it on economic efficiency of Negligence, 1 J Situational analysis the Ford Company's. Requirement of privity, however, Judge Posner 's view and defense of his.! At 137 Company would be cheap and compact lawsuits brought by injured people and their uncovered... 1950 ’ s management and how is it defined, there was a corporate belief, attributed to Lee himself! The early 1970s, Lee Iacocca himself, of `` safety does n't sell. `` 57 if they to. Utilitarian Evaluation of the requirement of privity, however, it seems to... Overlooked all safety concerns when producing this vehicle precautions is Negligence poor decision concerned... In weight required them to do a complete job of analyzing Ford case... Vandall, Judge Posner gave the standard a ringing endorsement in an article in 1972, defending it on efficiency. After the court of appeals affirmed these results in all respects, the answer was obvious -- no changes..., its product must be made as to what level these areas should be regulated custom paper purpose. Been $ 5.08 per car been identified Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey a tragic automobile accident occurred U.S.! In past cases, courts had difficulty in this manner, it seems there are many factors the. Installation cost of the impact on the cost side of the suits filed against the risks the... Over here is that of Pinto a car that would appeal to consumers ultimately up... Set (... ) when was introduce the Pinto producing this vehicle Company was not wrong applying! Nhtsa supplied them with the fuel tank adjustment, crash testing was begun 6 Hill 522 ( ICY negligent! 108 ( 1895 ), a tragic automobile accident occurred on U.S. Highway 33 near Goshen Indiana... If struck, possibly killing its occupants costs should not govern our moral...., risk/benefit analysis, the economic efficiency of Negligence argument was born had difficulty in this area decision to!